This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Australia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Australia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Australia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Oceania.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
8 out of 9 of the references (one of the items listed as a reference out of 10 is not a reference, but a note) are primary sources. The remaining source does not provide WP:SIGCOV. In a WP:BEFORE I found a lot of hits with passing mentions but nothing with SIGCOV. TarnishedPathtalk07:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp, WP:NBUILD states that Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. However, I've not been able to find any significant in-depth coverage. Even the sources that @Fork99 dug up don't demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. If any source are provided demonstrating SIGCOV, in reliable, third-party sources, I would happily withdraw this. TarnishedPathtalk10:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not especially familiar with Australian heritage listing, but I think this is locally listed rather than on the national or even state register (although I'm happy to be proved wrong on this). However, it clearly contributes to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Please nominate more carefully! Every debate is time people do not spend in the article space. gidonb (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only primary sources provided. I also searched under full name "Australasian Universities Building Education Association", and only got a primary source. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL - was created in 2017 with heavy promotional material. The subject played primarily in an Australian second tier semi-professional league. There are no secondary or independent sources available. The subject is also basically an Orphan with it's only link being his father's page at Sedale Threatt. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced biography of an actor. I've found and added four references, but three are from the BBC Press Office so are not independent, and the fourth is a passing mention in a local newspaper. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. His two roles for which we have evidence are supporting characters as far as I can see, so I don't think he meets WP:NACTOR. The article has been tagged as possibly not meeting notability criteria since December 2023. Tacyarg (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not totally sure about this. At first I also thought this might be a hoax, and any the sources I am finding were maybe based on the wikipedia article, but the page history[1] shows that the article is based on an earlier article by the "Flag Society of Australia." And here are some photos of the flag flying in Australia[2], though maybe that's just flown by somebody who fell for a hoax? Elspea756 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge with Lord Howe Island, unless we can establish that it truly is a hoax. Can anyone who has been to Lord Howe Island tell whether people there use this flag? I wouldn't use Flag Color Codes or the fact that there are such flags for sale on Amazon as RS in the article, but they do suggest that the flag is in use somewhere. My second choice after merge would be to delete. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: If you got rid of this one page youd have to get rid of all of these pages too Category:Scheduled motorsport seasons Multiple of those articles lack in real infomation and are full of TBCs. MotoGP and WRC dont even have the race calendar on them, but rather contracted races. There is sources about what tracks are holding what. And the dates. AidenT06 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AidenT06 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Keep: This championship is a GT championshio just like the British GT Championship and Intercontinental GT Challenge, in which this championship has also valid pages for the 2025 seasons right now. And the race calendar was already published for the next year. So, this page should be kept. And I really agree @AidenT06 for his opinion. There are two important categories already including the next seasons of motorsport championships, Category:2025 in motorsport and Category:Scheduled motorsport seasons. So, if you got rid of this page, why did not you get rid of the pages of all 2025 seasons, also for F1, WEC, and so on? Apeiro94 (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Quick search for sources show that we're still in the early announcements stage of planning for the season. Deletion is unwarranted but could do with further development in draft space before being moved to main later this year when there will presumably be some more meaty content to discuss. Neither keep vote makes any substantial argument, both rely on WP:OTHERSTUFF appeals. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as a reasonable WP:ATD. The previous iterations of the championship seem notable, so there's no indication why this one cannot be when the time comes. But right now, it should be incubated in draftspace until the event is much closer. Bandit Heeler (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Per WP:TOOSOON, "[f]or an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources". That is simply not the case and the article is best sent to draft as this will change in the future. TarnishedPathtalk10:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I understand muti page move would have likely been a better format for this discussion, however the template did not seem to function properly. Mn1548 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative could be to merge/redirect to 2022 NRL season#Pre-season, adding details from the background but not the fixtures section. There are only four NRL teams without 2022 season articles, Raiders, Roosters, Tigers, and Warriors, so all the matches apart from 2 (Roosters against Raiders and Tigers) are covered by these articles. EdwardUK (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Disagreeing with the contention to rename the 2023 and 2024 articles. Both include additional information (trials, All Stars etc) that don't quite fit into the NRL's "Pre-season Challenge" nomenclature. I think the article in question here is a reasonable fork from the 2022 NRL season results article, which effectively captures the intention of these pre-season results articles. If anything (and this is especially true in the WP:RL space), these articles just require more prose. Storm machine (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally agree with most of this, though it still doesn't cover my main issue with the page - its title. "2022 NRL season results" implies there is some sort of formal organisation by the NRL, which there wasn't until 2023 and the pre-season challenge. Re 2023 and 2024, the non pre-season challenge information is minimal, and can be moved to the pre-season section of the respective NRL season page leaving the pre-season page as purely pre-season challenge information. Mn1548 (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the sources are related to the speedway does not make them non-independent. Per WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. These sources could be considered affiliated with him if, for example, he were their owner. I would add a few more secondary sources [3][4][5]Tau Corvi (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I saw the RSN discussion first, so I do not plan to vote, but to give my opinion from my limited perspective. Having taken a look at Scunthorpe Scorpions, which looks like two different teams on one article, I can count about five dozen riders that have articles. Of the "Notable riders," most of them use "speedway related sources" in their articles with British Speedway cited between two and three dozen times. (More problematic, but farther outside of the discussion is that at least one article is citing sources that are MREL and GUNREL.)Overall, the issue over the specific sources is going to have an effect on other articles. If deemed a problem, then there will need to be more AfD discussions in the near future; while if deemed acceptable could lead to additional article creations. I am of the opinion that redirects to the team articles could be more preferred than deletion and that some information might be includable in the various team articles. That said, I am unsure if the sources are a problem on these rider articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get an actual assessment of sources brought up in this discussion rather than general statements about the article lacking sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]